This is Thomas Mallon. Hello.
I was working of my Portfolio thing and I sort of stumbled upon an interesting question. Why do human divisions exist? Why, for example, do we feel the need to separate ourselves from others? We define ourselves as individuals this way, and in my opinion, despite the downsides, separations between people is a good thing. But what i really want to is ask is why we as creatures have such a need to assert individuality; why are we dissatisfied with homogenaity? Is it natural, the way that birds will kill members of the flock that look different; or is it social or mental, a creation of the human mind to verify some element of the consiousness? Tell me.
5 comments:
Thom, I really don't have a sincere answer to your question, but if I had to guess I'd say that we pursue individuality because we like to see ourselves as superior to others. We don't like to see homogenaity because then we can't compare ourselves to others. If we can climb the social ladder (in terms of finances, education, occupation, and service to the community), we have pursued a common goal among many humans and we see ourselves as individuals. This may be a complete stetch....
Anyway, since I'm one of the blog people this week, here is my reflection on this rotation's class time:
This rotation, we talked about a lot of interesting topics ranging from hate sites on the internet to the Armenian genocide. All of these topics related back to common theme: a duty of obligation. In any situation, it’s always hard to know whether to step in or stay out. When are we obligated to help someone and when are we not? When do we step in to solve a problem?
I am mostly going to talk about the Armenian genocide reading because we did not talk about it much in class and we haven’t on the blog. After reading chapters 1 and 2 of Samantha Power, I was shocked that I hadn’t heard any of this before. Why is it that when we study World War I that we don’t hear about the Armenian genocide.? I don’t remember it even being mentioned in 10th or 11th grade history classes (although this may just be my inability to recollect something like this….). Why is it that the Holocaust is given so much more attention and is known around the world when a similar thing happened to the Armenian Christians? This question really confounded me because it made absolutely no sense. (answers anyone?)
Reading about the Armenian genocide and the people who erratically opposed it, including Morgenthau and Lemkin, provided me with a background of history that I had never heard of. Of all the things in the reading, what I found most interesting was the reaction of other countries. While Armenians were entangled in a massive genocide, countries like the U.S. absolutely refused to help because they did not want to intervene and involve Americans. While this makes sense, it is still unfathomable that foreign countries would let something like this happen. The efforts of Morgenthau and even more importantly, Lemkin, show that there were some people dying to help the Armenians in need. As an upstander, Lemkin showed great tenacity in is pursuit of an international law that banned “barbarity” and “vandalism”. Although I thought this was a great idea, I did not understand how something like this would be enforced-- it’s just too difficult. I think that in the world today, many countries and the U.N. make promises that aren’t kept. For example, the U.N. has promised a lot in Sudan, but hasn’t followed through with any of it. Lemkin wanted to prevent genocide before it even started. Many U.S. government officials did not see his pragmatism. While I haven’t read into chapters 3 and 4 yet about the U.N. declaration, I bet his work does some good. I’m looking forward to having a guest speaker on this topic.
…..New rotation time…..
I had a long drawn out comment to thom's question but the computer lost that information so now I'm just going to try to give a summary of that previous post.
I believe that human divisions exist based upon a number of factors. Obviously, socially, economically, politically, etc. We divide ourselves because it gives us a sort of comfort zone that one needs for security in their lives (or for any other reason).
I think humans (and creatures) feel the need to assert their individuality because in some cases people want to be set apart from the rest. With animals, competition is their nature. If they are not competitive they will not be able to mate (males mainly) and they are unable to "spread their seed". The same is true with humans, if they are not accepted then they cannot pass on their genes.
In some ways these things are natural, in others they are not, they are seen as "inhumane"...
I think there are several aspects to this question.
Although i do not know how natural vs. society-created our need for indivduality is, but i think that a large part of this phenomenon is due to our desire to have an identity. We as human beings like to examine our own personalities and conclude things about how we act and how we feel. this is what makes up the concept of an "identity," and once we have established our identities, we have a desire to compare them and separate them from those of other human beings. This results in individuality. in other words, individuality is the visible manifestation of identity, which is essentially an internal idea.
The other part of my response is similar to what aileen was saying, and relates to a concept i just learned in B&B. A psychologist named Alfred Adler has a theory that humans, beginning in childhood, experience a sense of inferiority, and one of our main driving goals is to search for a way out. In terms of Thom's question, this means that we seek individuality as a means of distinguising ourselves (in a positive light) from others. We attempt to use our individualty to appear superior. We would never be able to rise from our inferiority if we were equal -- both from our own perspective, and from that of others -- to everyone else.
hope that helps a little.
Greece: The cradle of Western civilization, is, I think where we can root this value we place on individuality. Socrates pressed the value of "knowing thyself" and understanding one's strengths and weaknesses so that when confronted with adversity, the best way to overcome the problem will come from one's understanding oneself. That's some preachy stuff
Racism and group tension was just as volatile between different Greek city states as it has been between different races in America. Ancient Greeks seem pretty homogenous to us, but to them the differences between an Athenian and a Theban were distinct and obvious. Perhaps genetically it is advantageous to pick out members of society as "enemies" in order to pass on one's own genes. This kind of idea could be hardwired into our genes.
Im gonna be a science fiction writer
Actually, funny enough, I was thinking of posting something about a similar topic. I also did my portfolio assignment based on the points we discussed in class about religions vs. cults. i agree with almost everything that people responded about, but my focus was more on the similarities and differences between these two types of groups, specifically the KKK.
When doing research for my paper, i stumbled upon a really fascinating interview in the Galegroup archive database that was from TIME magazine in 1992. The interview was conducted by Daniel Levy between Cantor Michael Weisser and former Klu Klux Klan Grand Dragon Larry Trapp, and basically what it was was the retelling of a remarkable story of how Larry Trapp got "rescued" away from the KKK cult.
The url is: http://galenet.galegroup.com/
servlet/History/hits?r=d&orig
Search=false&bucket=iac&o=&n=
10&tab=2&l=dJ&hdb=MW&items=0&
tabMap=3&c=2&docNum=A11829502
&sgPhrase=false&locID=san47811
&secondary=true&t=RK&s=1&SU=KKK
Make sure to type in the password to access the database, or else you can't view it (if you don't know it or if you forgot, its "welcome")
I really recommmend looking at it because its actually really interesting and i felt like i understood the story and background of the KKK a little better. Not that any of my opinions of them changed or it justified any of the horrid acts that they committed, but just hearing the story from a man who was a leader of this cult, and is now speaking about it from a non-member and outside point of view, makes it more real and "human" in a way.
What really stood out for me after reading the interview many times, was that the members of cults such as the KKK are in reality, very insecure, yet truly prejudiced and hateful people. Trapp expressed that these groups are completely fueled by hate, and that fear is their biggest and most effective weapon. The members don't always agree with one another, and there was obviously an emptiness and pain inside of Trapp when he got the phone call back from Weisser. The part that scared me the most was that Trapp admitted that at one point in his life, he did hate the minority races and he genuinely felt and proclaimed the intent on killing off an entire species. Not only was Trapp a believer, but he was a big leader for the group, called a "Grand Dragon." However, that made Trapp's life story so much more complex and incredible. In Feburary of 1992 when he was interviewed, he knew he had only 6 more months to live, but he said that he still felt he had a very meaningful life, and that the things that happened in his life, from the clan to his phone call to Weisser, was all planned and predestined.
For those of you who do have a chance to read it (its pretty short), i'd love to hear your responses or how it connects with some of the points Tom and others brought up.
Post a Comment